The Acute Effect Of Percussive Massage Or Static Stretching On Hamstring Flexibility
Jessica Diaz, Casey Spor, Ryan Mullin, Peter Byrne, Jacob Virginia, Robert M. Otto, John Petrizzo, Michele Aquino, John Wygand
Abstract
Jessica Diaz, Casey Spor, Ryan Mullin, Peter Byrne, Jacob Virginia, Robert M. Otto, John Petrizzo, Michele Aquino, John Wygand
Abstract
The effectiveness of techniques to enhance joint range of motion including static and dynamic stretching, have been studied for more than 50 years and is well documented. However, there is a paucity of research on the effect of a new percussive massage technique on flexibility. Percussive massage provides a machine generated series of rapid movements over specific areas of the body with a variation in both the depth and speed of percussion. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the effect of percussive massage (PM), static stretching (ST) and no massage (NM) on low back and hamstring flexibility. METHODS: 30 subjects (age 22.2 ± 2.2 yr., height 174.2 ± 8.6 cm., weight 75.6 ± 14.2 kg., BMI 24.6 ± 4.3 Kg/m2) volunteered to participate in this single blind, crossover study. Subjects reported to the lab on three separate days in a resting state. Pre sit and reach measurements were taken immediately upon arrival. Thereafter, they participated in randomly assigned interventions of PM, ST, and NM. PM performed on both hamstrings and gluteal muscles simultaneously, 30 seconds at each muscle origin, muscle belly and insertion; total time of 90 seconds on each muscle. Static stretching consisted of a seated unilateral hamstring stretch and a supine unilateral leg cross-over stretch both held for 30 seconds. Following each intervention, post sit and reach measurements were obtained. A maximum of two minutes separated all pre and post- test measurements. RESULTS: Mean pre and post-test Sit and Reach measures (cm) were: 29.2 ± 8.1 and 31.6 ± 7.9, 28.7 ± 8.1 and 31.5 ± 7.8, and 28.6 ± 7.8 and 30 ± 8.1 for PM, ST, and NM, respectively. Statistical analysis by repeated measures ANOVA at p<.05, was applied to assess pre-post intervention differences. The changes (cm) between pre - and post-interventions were 2.4 ± 2, 2.8 ± 2.9, and 1.5 ± 1.5 for PM, ST, and NM, respectively. A significant difference was evident between ST and NM (p = .004), with NSD (p>.05) between PM and ST and PM and NM. CONCLUSION: PM and ST elicit similar, acute improvements in low back and hamstring flexibility. Supported, in part by a grant from Theragun®.
OpenAlex reports 1 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
The effectiveness of techniques to enhance joint range of motion including static and dynamic stretching, have been studied for more than 50 years and is well documented. However, there is a paucity of research on the effect of a new percussive massage technique on flexibility. Percussive massage provides a machine generated series of rapid movements over specific areas of the body with a variation in both the depth and speed of percussion. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the effect of percussive massage (PM), static stretching (ST) and no massage (NM) on low back and hamstring flexibility. METHODS: 30 subjects (age 22.2 ± 2.2 yr., height 174.2 ± 8.6 cm., weight 75.6 ± 14.2 kg., BMI 24.6 ± 4.3 Kg/m2) volunteered to participate in this single blind, crossover study. Subjects reported to the lab on three separate days in a resting state. Pre sit and reach measurements were taken immediately upon arrival. Thereafter, they participated in randomly assigned interventions of PM, ST, and NM. PM performed on both hamstrings and gluteal muscles simultaneously, 30 seconds at each muscle origin, muscle belly and insertion; total time of 90 seconds on each muscle. Static stretching consisted of a seated unilateral hamstring stretch and a supine unilateral leg cross-over stretch both held for 30 seconds. Following each intervention, post sit and reach measurements were obtained. A maximum of two minutes separated all pre and post- test measurements. RESULTS: Mean pre and post-test Sit and Reach measures (cm) were: 29.2 ± 8.1 and 31.6 ± 7.9, 28.7 ± 8.1 and 31.5 ± 7.8, and 28.6 ± 7.8 and 30 ± 8.1 for PM, ST, and NM, respectively. Statistical analysis by repeated measures ANOVA at p<.05, was applied to assess pre-post intervention differences. The changes (cm) between pre - and post-interventions were 2.4 ± 2, 2.8 ± 2.9, and 1.5 ± 1.5 for PM, ST, and NM, respectively. A significant difference was evident between ST and NM (p = .004), with NSD (p>.05) between PM and ST and PM and NM. CONCLUSION: PM and ST elicit similar, acute improvements in low back and hamstring flexibility. Supported, in part by a grant from Theragun®.
Key concepts: Static stretching, Massage, Supine position, Hamstring, Hamstring muscles, Flexibility (engineering), Medicine, Physical therapy